Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/257431200
CITATIONS READS
2,271 9,413
1 author:
Richard M. Felder
North Carolina State University
330 PUBLICATIONS 26,376 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The new practices in the Chemical Engineering Laboratory based ein competences View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Richard M. Felder on 19 August 2017.
When Linda Silverman and I wrote this paper in 1987, our goal was to offer some insights about
teaching and learning based on Dr. Silverman’s expertise in educational psychology and my
experience in engineering education that would be helpful to some of my fellow engineering
professors. When the paper was published early in 1988, the response was astonishing. Almost
immediately, reprint requests flooded in from all over the world. The paper started to be cited in
the engineering education literature, then in the general science education literature; it was the
first article cited in the premier issue of ERIC’s National Teaching and Learning Forum; and it
was the most frequently cited paper in articles published in the Journal of Engineering Education
over a 10-year period. A self-scoring web-based instrument called the Index of Learning Styles
that assesses preferences on four scales of the learning style model developed in the paper
currently gets about 100,000 hits a year and has been translated into half a dozen languages that I
know about and probably more that I don’t, even though it has not yet been validated. The 1988
paper is still cited more than any other paper I have written, including more recent papers on
learning styles.
A problem is that in recent years I have found reasons to make two significant changes in
the model: dropping the inductive/deductive dimension, and changing the visual/auditory
category to visual/verbal. (I will shortly explain both modifications.) When I set up my web
site, I deliberately left the 1988 paper out of it, preferring that readers consult more recent
articles on the subject that better reflected my current thinking. Since the paper seems to have
acquired a life of its own, however, I decided to add it to the web site with this preface included
to explain the changes. The paper is reproduced following the preface, unmodified from the
original version except for changes in layout I made for reasons that would be known to anyone
who has ever tried to scan a 3-column article with inserts and convert it into a Microsoft Word
document.
I have come to believe that while induction and deduction are indeed different learning
preferences and different teaching approaches, the “best” method of teaching—at least below
the graduate school level—is induction, whether it be called problem-based learning, discovery
learning, inquiry learning, or some variation on those themes. On the other hand, the traditional
college teaching method is deduction, starting with "fundamentals" and proceeding to
applications.
The problem with inductive presentation is that it isn't concise and prescriptive—you
have to take a thorny problem or a collection of observations or data and try to make sense of it.
Many or most students would say that they prefer deductive presentation—“Just tell me exactly
what I need to know for the test, not one word more or less.” (My speculation in the paper that
more students would prefer induction was refuted by additional sampling.) I don't want
2
instructors to be able to determine somehow that their students prefer deductive presentation and
use that result to justify continuing to use the traditional but less effective lecture paradigm in
their courses and curricula. I have therefore omitted this dimension from the model.
“Visual” information clearly includes pictures, diagrams, charts, plots, animations, etc.,
and “auditory” information clearly includes spoken words and other sounds. The one medium of
information transmission that is not clear is written prose. It is perceived visually and so
obviously cannot be categorized as auditory, but it is also a mistake to lump it into the visual
category as though it were equivalent to a picture in transmitting information. Cognitive
scientists have established that our brains generally convert written words into their spoken
equivalents and process them in the same way that they process spoken words. Written words
are therefore not equivalent to real visual information: to a visual learner, a picture is truly worth
a thousand words, whether they are spoken or written. Making the learning style pair visual and
verbal solves this problem by permitting spoken and written words to be included in the same
category (verbal). For more details about the cognition studies that led to this conclusion, see
R.M. Felder and E.R. Henriques, “Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign and Second
Language Education,” Foreign Language Annals, 28 (1), 21–31 (1995).
<http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/Papers/FLAnnals.pdf>.
The Index of Learning Styles (ILS) is a self-scoring web-based instrument that assesses
preferences on the Sensing/Intuiting, Visual/Verbal, Active/Reflective, and Sequential/Global
dimensions. It is available free to individuals and instructors who wish to use it for teaching and
research on their own classes, and it is licensed to companies and individuals who plan to use it
for broader research studies or services to customers or clients. To access the ILS and
information about it, go to <http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/ILSpage.html>.
“Inductive learners need to see phenomena before they can understand underlying theory.”
this one between the preferred input whenever possible. applications is an efficient and elegant
modality of most students and the pre- way to organize and present material
ferred presentation mode of most Inductive and Deductive that is already understood.
professors. Irrespective of the extent Learners Consequently, most engineering cur-
of the mismatch, presentations that use ricula are laid out along deductive
both visual and auditory modalities Induction is a reasoning progression lines, beginning with “fundamentals”
reinforce learning for all stu- that proceeds from particulars for sophomores and arriving at design
dents.4,14,19,20 The point is made by a (observations, measurements, data) to and operations by the senior year. A
study carried out by the Socony-Vac- generalities (governing rules, laws, similar progression is normally used to
uum Oil Company that concludes that theories). Deduction proceeds in the present material within individual
opposite direction. In induction one
students retain 10 percent of what they infers principles; in deduction one courses: principles first, applications
read, 26 percent of what they hear, 30 deduces consequences. later (if ever).
percent of what they see, 50 percent of Induction is the natural human Our informal surveys suggest that
what they see and hear, 70 percent of learning style. Babies do not come most engineering students view
what they say, and 90 percent of what into life with a set of general princi- themselves as inductive learners. We
they say as they do something.21 ples but rather observe the world also asked a group of engineering
How to teach both visual and au- around them and draw inferences: “If I professors to identify their own
ditory learners: Few engineering in- throw my bottle and scream loudly, learning and teaching styles: half of
structors would have to modify what someone eventually shows up.” Most the 46 professors identified them-
they usually do in order to present of what we learn on our own (as selves as inductive and half as de-
information auditorily: lectures opposed to in class) originates in a real ductive learners, but all agreed that
accomplish this task. What must situation or problem that needs to be their teaching was almost purely de-
generally be added to accommodate all addressed and solved, not in a general ductive. To the extent that these re-
students is visual material—pictures, principle; deduction may be part of the sults can be generalized, in the or-
diagrams, sketches. Process flow solution process but it is never the ganization of information along
charts, network diagrams, and logic or entire process. inductive/deductive lines—as in the
information flow charts should be used On the other hand, deduction is the other dimensions discussed so far—a
to illustrate complex processes or natural human teaching style, at least mismatch thus exists between the
algorithms; mathematical functions for technical subjects at the college learning styles of most engineering
should be illustrated by graphs; and level. Stating the governing prin- students and the teaching style to
films or live demonstrations of ciples and working down to the which they are almost invariably ex-
working processes should be presented posed.
678
One problem with deductive tive learner. There are indications that
presentation is that it gives a seriously Active learners do not learn engineers are more likely to be active
misleading impression. When students much in situations that require than reflective learners.20
see a perfectly ordered and concise them to be passive, and reflective Active learners do not learn much
exposition of a relatively complex learners do not learn much in in situations that require them to be
derivation they tend to think that the situations that provide no passive (such as most lectures), and
author/instructor originally came up opportunity to think about the reflective learners do not learn much
with the material in the same neat information being presented. in situations that provide no opportu-
fashion, which they (the students) nity to think about the information
could never have done. They may then with a statement of observable being presented (such as most lec-
conclude that the course and perhaps phenomena that the theory will tures). Active learners work well in
the curriculum and the profession are explain or of a physical problem the groups; reflective learners work better
beyond their abilities. They are correct theory will be used to solve; infers the by themselves or with at most one
in thinking that they could not have governing rules or principles that ex- other person. Active learners tend to
come up with that result in that plain the observed phenomena; and be experimentalists; reflective learners
manner; what they do not know is that deduces other implications and con- tend to be theoreticians.
neither could the professor nor the sequences of the inferred principles. At first glance there appears to be a
author the first time around. Un- Perhaps most important, some home- considerable overlap between active
fortunately, students never get to see work problems should be assigned that learners and sensors, both of whom
the real process—the false starts and present phenomena and ask for the are involved in the external world of
blind alleys, the extensive trial-and- underlying rules. Such problems play phenomena, and between reflective
error efforts that eventually lead to the to the inductive learners strength and learners and intuitors, both of whom
elegant presentation in the book or on they also help deductive learners favor the internal world of abstraction.
the board. An element of inductive develop facility with their less- The categories are independent,
teaching is necessary for the instructor preferred learning mode. Several such however. The sensor preferentially
to be able to diminish the students’ exercises have been suggested for selects information available in the
awe and increase their realistic different branches of engineering.29 external world but may process it
perceptions of problem-solving. either actively or reflectively, in the
Much research supports the notion Active and Reflective Learners latter case by postulating explanations
that the inductive teaching approach or interpretations, drawing analogies,
promotes effective learning. The The complex mental processes by or formulating models. Similarly, the
benefits claimed for this approach which perceived information is con- intuitor selects information generated
include increased academic achieve- verted into knowledge can be conve- internally but may process it
ment and enhanced abstract reasoning niently grouped into two categories: reflectively or actively, in the latter
skills;22 longer retention of in- active experimentation and reflective case by setting up an experiment to
formation;23’24 improved ability to observation.3 Active experimentation test out the idea or trying it out on a
apply principles;25 confidence in involves doing something in the colleague.
external world with the information—
problem-solving abilities;26 and in- In the list of teaching-style catego-
discussing it or explaining it or testing
creased capability for inventive it in some way—and reflective ries (table 1) the opposite of active is
thought.27’28 observation involves examining and passive, not reflective, with both terms
Inductive learners need motivation manipulating the information in- referring to the nature of student
for learning. They do not feel trospectively. * An “active learner” is participation in class. “Active”
comfortable with the “Trust me—this someone who feels more comfortable signifies that students do something in
stuff will be useful to you some day” with, or is better at, active ex- class beyond simply listening and
perimentation than reflective ob-
approach: like sensors, they need to watching, e.g., discussing, question-
servation, and conversely for a reflec-
see the phenomena before they can ing, arguing, brainstorming, or re-
understand and appreciate the flecting. Active student participation
underlying theory. * The active learner and the reflec- thus encompasses the learning pro-
How to teach both deductive and tive learner are closely related to the cesses of active experimentation and
inductive learners: An effective way extravert and introvert, respectively, of reflective observation. A class in
to reach both groups is to follow the the Jung-Myers-Briggs model.1 The which students are always passive is a
scientific method in classroom active learner also has much in class in which neither the active
presentations: first induction, then common with the kinesthetic learner experimenter nor the reflective ob-
deduction. The instructor precedes of the modality and neurolinguistic server can learn effectively. Unfortu-
presentations of theoretical material programming literature.14,15
679
nately, most engineering classes fall global learners. Since they do not learn
into this category. Global learners should be given in a steady or predictable manner they
As is true of all the other learning- tend to feel out-of-step with their
style dimensions, both active and re- the freedom to devise their own fellow students and incapable of
flective learners are needed as engi- methods of solving problems meeting the expectations of their
neers. The reflective observers are the rather than being forced to teachers. They may feel stupid when
theoreticians, the mathematical they are struggling to master material
modelers, the ones who can define the adopt the professor’s strategy, with which most of their
problems and propose possible and they should be exposed contemporaries seem to have little
solutions. The active experimenters are trouble. Some eventually become
periodically to advanced
the ones who evaluate the ideas, design discouraged with education and drop
and carry out the experiments, and find concepts before these concepts out. However, global learners are the
the solutions that work—the would normally be introduced. last students who should be lost to
organizers, the decision-makers. How higher education and society. They are
to teach both active and reflective the synthesizers, the multidisciplinary
learning dictated by the clock and
learners: Primarily, the instructor researchers, the systems thinkers, the
the calendar. When a body of material
should alternate lectures with ones who see the connections no one
has been covered the students are
occasional pauses for thought else sees. They can be truly
tested on their mastery and then move
(reflective) and brief discussion or outstanding engineers—if they survive
to the next stage.
problem-solving activities (active), and the educational process.
Some students are comfortable with
should present material that How to teach global learners: Ev-
this system; they learn sequentially,
emphasizes both practical problem- erything required to meet the needs of
mastering the material more or less as
solving (active) and fundamental un- sequential learners is already being
it is presented. Others, however,
derstanding (reflective). An excep- done from first grade through graduate
cannot learn in this manner. They
tionally effective technique for school: curricula are sequential, course
learn in fits and starts: they may be
reaching active learners is to have syllabi are sequential, textbooks are
lost for days or weeks, unable to solve
students organize themselves at their sequential, and most teachers teach
even the simplest problems or show
seats in groups of three or four and sequentially. To reach the global
the most rudimentary understanding,
periodically come up with collective learners in a class, the instructor
until suddenly they “get it”—the light
answers to questions posed by the should provide the big picture or goal
bulb flashes, the jigsaw puzzle comes
instructor. The groups may be given of a lesson before presenting the steps,
together. They may then understand
from 30 seconds to five minutes to do doing as much as possible to establish
the material well enough to they apply
so, after which the answers are shared the context and relevance of the
it to problems that leave most of the
and discussed for as much or as little subject matter and to relate it to the
sequential learners baffled. These are
time as the instructor wishes to spend students’ experience. Applications and
the global learners.32
on the exercise. Besides forcing “what ifs” should be liberally
Sequential learners follow linear
thought about the course material, such furnished. The students should be
reasoning processes when solving
brainstorming exercises can indicate given the freedom to devise their own
problems; global learners make intu-
material that students don’t methods of solving problems rather
itive leaps and may be unable to ex-
understand; provide a more congenial than being forced to adopt the
plain how they came up with solu-
classroom environment than can be professor’s strategy, and they should
tions. Sequential learners can work
achieved with a formal lecture; and be exposed periodically to advanced
with material when they understand it
involve even the most introverted concepts before these concepts would
partially or superficially, while global
students, who would never participate normally be introduced.
learners may have great difficulty
in a full class discussion. One such A particularly valuable way for in-
doing so. Sequential learners may be
exercise lasting no more than five structors to serve the global learners in
strong in convergent thinking and
minutes in the middle of a lecture their classes, as well as the sequential
analysis; global learners may be better
period can make the entire period a learners, is to assign creativity
at divergent thinking and synthesis.
stimulating and rewarding educational exercises—problems that involve
Sequential learners learn best when
experience.31 generating alternative solutions and
material is presented in a steady
bringing in material from other
progression of complexity and
Sequential and Global Learners courses or disciplines—and to en-
difficulty; global learners sometimes
courage students who show promise in
do better by jumping directly to more
Most formal education involves the solving them.31’33 Another way to
complex and difficult material. School
presentation of material in a logically support global learners is to explain
is often a difficult experience for
ordered progression, with the pace of
680
A class in which students are C.F. Yokomoto, L. Harrisberger, and tary School Children, U.S.O.E. Co-
E.D. Sloan, “Applications of Psycho- operative Research Project No. 2404,
always passive is a class in which logical Type in Engineering Edu- San Francisco State College, San Fran-
cation,” Engineering Education, vol. cisco, Calif., 1966.
neither the active experimenter 23. McConnell, T.R., “Discovery
73, no. 5, Feb. 1983, pp. 394-400.
nor the reflective observer can 10. Yokomoto, C.E and J.R. Ware, Versus Authoritative Identification in
“Improving Problem Solving Perfor- the Learning of Children,” Studies in
learn effectively. Unfortunately, Education, 2(5), 13-60 (1934).
mance Using the MBTI,” Proceedings,
most engineering classes fall into ASEE Annual Conference, College 24. Swenson, E.J., et al., “Organiza-
Station, Tex., 1982, pp. 163-167. tion and Generalization as Factors in
this category. Learning, Transfer, and Retroactive In-
11. Godleski, E.S., “Learning Style
Compatibility of Engineering Students hibition,” Learning Theory in School
the techniques in every class but rather and Faculty,” Proceedings, Annual Situations, University of Minnesota
to pick several that look feasible and Frontiers in Education Conference, Press, Minneapolis, Minn., 1949.
try them; keep the ones that work; drop ASEE/IEEE, Philadelphia, 1984, p. 25. Lahti, A.M., “The Inductive-De-
362. ductive Method and the Physical Sci-
the others; and try a few more in the ence Laboratory,” Journal of Experi-
next course. In this way a teaching 12. Godleski, E.S., “Faculty-Student
Compatibility,” Presented at the 1983 mental Education, vol. 24, 1956, pp.
style that is both effective for students 149-163. Cited in MeKeachie, W. J.,
Summer National Meeting of the
and comfortable for the professor will American Institute of Chemical Engi- Teaching Tips (7th edit.), Heath, Lex-
evolve naturally and relatively neers, Denver, Aug. 1983. ington, Mass., 1978, p. 33.
painlessly, with a potentially dramatic 13. Barbe, WB. and M.N. Milone, 26. Kagan, J., “Impulsive and Re-
effect on the quality of learning that “What We Know About Modality flective Children: The Significance of
subsequently occurs. Strengths,” Educational Leadership, Conceptual Tempo,” in J. Krumboltz,
Feb. 1981, pp. 378-380. Ed., Learning and the Educational
14. Barbe, WB., R.H. Swassing and Process, Rand McNally, Chicago, Ill.
References 1965.
M.N. Milone, Teaching Through Mo-
dality Strengths: Concepts and Prac- 27. Chomsky, N., Language and
1. Lawrence, G., People Types and Mind, Harcourt, Brace and World,
Tiger Stripes: A Practical Guide to tices, Zaner-Bloser, Columbus, Oh.,
1979. New York, 1968.
Learning Styles, 2nd edit., Center for 28. Piaget, J., Science of Education
Applications of Psychological Type, 15. Bandler, R. and J. Grinder,
Frogs into Princes, Real People Press, and the Psychology of the Child, Orion
Gainesville, Fla., 1982. Press, New York, 1970.
2. Lawrence, G., “A Synthesis of Moab, Ut., 1979.
16. Dunn, R. and K. Dunn, 29. Felder, R.M. and L.K.
Learning Style Research Involving the Silverman, “Learning Styles and
MBTI,” J. Psychological Type 8, 2-15 Teaching Students Through Their Teaching Styles in Engineering
(1984). Individual Learning Styles: A Prac- Education,” Presented at the 1987
3. KoIb, D.A., Experiential Learn- tical Approach, Reston Publishing Annual Meeting of the American
ing: Experience as the Source of Division of Prentice-Hall Publishers, Institute of Chemical Engineers, New
Learning and Development, Prentice- Reston, Va., 1978. York, Nov. 1987.
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1984. 17. Waldheim, G.P, “Understanding 30. Kolb, op. cit., ref. 3, p. 86.
4. Dunn, R., T. DeBello, P Brennan, How Students Understand,” Engi- 31. Felder, R.M., “Creativity in En-
J. Krimsky, and P. Murrain, “Learning neering Education, vol. 77, no. 5, Feb. gineering Education,” Chemical Engi-
Style Researchers Define Differences 1987, pp. 306-308. neering Education, 1988, in press.
Differently,” Educational Leadership, 18. Richardson, J., Working With 32. Silverman, L.K., “Global Learn-
Feb. 1981, pp. 372-375. People, Associate Management Inst., ers: Our Forgotten Gifted Children,”
5. Guild, P.B. and S. Garger, San Francisco, Calif., 1984. Paper presented at the 7th World Con-
Marching to Different Drummers, 19. Barbe, W.B. and M.N. Milone, ference on Gifted and Talented Chil-
ACSD, 1985. “Modality Strengths: A Reply to Dunn dren, Salt Lake City, Ut., Aug. 1987.
6. Jung, C.G., Psychological Types, and Carbo,” Educational Leadership, 33. Felder, R.M., “On Creating Cre-
Princeton University Press, Princeton, Mar. 1981, p. 489. ative Engineers,” Engineering Educa-
N.J., 1971. (Originally published in 20. Dunn, R. and M. Carbo, tion, vol. 77, no. 4, Jan. 1987, pp. 222-
1921.) “Modalities: An Open Letter to Walter 227.
7. Myers, lB. and Myers, PB., Gifts Barbe, Michael Milone, and Raymond 34. Hoffman, J.L., K. Waters and M.
Differing, Consulting Psychologists Swassing,” Educational Leadership, Berry, “Personality Types and Com-
Press. Palo Alto, Calif., 1980. Feb. 1981, pp. 381-382. puter Assisted Instruction in a Self-
8. McCaulley, M.H., “Psychological 21. Stice, J.E., “Using KoIb’s Paced Technical Training Environ-
Types of Engineering Students— Learning Cycle to Improve Student ment,” Research in Psychological Type
Implications for Teaching,” Learning,” Engineering Education, 3, 81-85 (1981).
Engineering Education, vol. 66, no. 7, vol. 77, no. 5, Feb. 1987, pp. 291-296.
Apr. 1976, pp. 729-736. 22. Taba, H., Teaching Strategies
9. McCaulley, M.H., E.S. Godleski, and Cognitive Functioning in Elemen-